At O’Sullivan Sneddon Law, our lawyers have decades of experience running litigation and resolving complex legal disputes. We appear in State and Federal Courts, Tribunals and Commissions, and represent clients in mediations, arbitrations and settlement negotiations.

The best litigants usually have one thing in common: they have a clear strategy, and they keep asking the right questions as the dispute unfolds.

How strong is my case?

Ask your lawyer for a frank assessment of your case — the strengths, the weaknesses, and the parts you may not want to hear. Ask them to revisit that advice as the matter develops. Question assumptions. Be careful about relying on AI for legal strategy. Your lawyer’s advice should guide your decisions at each stage.

What does litigation really cost?

The legal bill is only part of the picture. There may also be barristers’ fees, expert fees, court fees, discovery and document management costs, management time, preparation for conferences and hearings, travel and accommodation — and, if you lose, the risk of paying a significant portion of the other side’s costs.

Litigation can take months or years. You may need to find documents, prepare statements, attend conferences, give evidence, and keep revisiting events you would rather move on from. For a business owner or senior executive, the disruption can be significant.

What about the human cost?

Litigation is stressful. Even with a strong case, you may spend months waiting for the other side’s next move. It is easy to become angry about what you see as unfair conduct, and fixated on proving you are right. That is understandable, but it can also cloud judgment. Keep coming back to what is actually in your best interests.

Don’t litigate for revenge

Anger rarely makes for good litigation strategy. Being right does not always mean that judgment at trial is the best commercial outcome. You might spend $300,000 proving you are entitled to $200,000. You might win after three years when a sensible settlement could have been reached in three months.

Choose your lawyer carefully

Does your lawyer enjoy litigation — or understand it? There is a real difference. Some lawyers love the contest: interlocutory fights, applications to strike out, trials, aggressive correspondence, short deadlines, security for costs applications and summary judgment arguments. Those skills can be invaluable when a case genuinely needs to be fought. But enthusiasm for the fight should never overtake what is in the client’s best interests.

The best litigation lawyer is not necessarily the one who wants the biggest fight. It is the one who knows when to fight, when to negotiate, and when to settle.

Do your own research

Do not simply choose the lawyer with the biggest advertisement or the highest profile. Ask how often they settle matters compared with taking them to trial. Ask about their approach to mediation, and whether they consider commercial consequences as carefully as legal merits.

It may also be worth looking at their litigation history. Publicly available court databases can give some insight into the types of matters a lawyer or firm has run, and the outcomes. Adverse judgments or costs orders do not automatically mean a lawyer is poor — anyone who regularly runs trials will lose some. But you are entitled to understand their track record and approach.

Litigation should be a strategy — not a reflex

Before starting proceedings, clients should ask themselves five questions:

1. What do I actually want? Money, an apology, a commercial outcome, a preserved relationship, a legal principle — and is it achievable?
2. What will it cost to achieve it? Not just legal fees, but experts, management time, disruption, and potential exposure to the other side’s costs.
3. How long am I prepared to live with this dispute? Six months? Two years? Longer?
4. What happens if I lose? And what if I win but recover substantially less than I spent?
5. Is there a negotiated outcome that’s good enough? “Good enough” is sometimes a better result than “perfect.”

The value of a good settlement

Settlement is sometimes treated as a sign of weakness. It is not. A negotiated settlement can provide certainty, stop legal costs escalating, protect confidentiality, preserve commercial relationships, and remove the risk of an adverse judgment. It also puts control back in the hands of the parties, rather than leaving the outcome to a judge.

That does not mean every case should settle. Some disputes need to be fought. But litigation should be a conscious decision, made with a clear understanding of the risks, costs and alternatives, and tied to a genuine dispute resolution strategy.

At O’Sullivan Sneddon Law, our job is not simply to beat the other side at trial. It is to help clients achieve the best available outcome — whether that means going to trial, fighting hard where necessary, or settling on sensible terms and moving on.

If you are involved in a dispute, the right question is not simply, “Can I win?” It is, “What is the best way to resolve this?”

If you have questions about litigation or developing a dispute resolution strategy, contact the O’Sullivan Sneddon Law Dispute Resolution team.

Dispute Resolution

The ATO and Fair Work Ombudsman have announced a joint crackdown on sham contracting, with investigations already underway in the construction and road transport sectors.

What is Sham Contracting?

Sham contracting occurs when a worker is labelled as an independent contractor when they are genuinely an employee – often to avoid paying super, leave and workers compensation entitlements.

Key Points

Here is what businesses need to know:

• It’s not enough to simply call someone a contractor. The substance of the arrangement matters.
• Penalties for sham contracting under the Fair Work Act can reach $495,000 (or three times the underpayment amount for larger businesses).
• Additional ATO charges may apply – including PAYG withholding penalties and the superannuation guarantee charge.
• Data matching through taxable payments annual reporting (TPAR) gives the ATO visibility over $507 billion in contractor payments annually.
• Nearly 1000 community tip offs are received every week.

A copy of the joint statement by the Fair Work Ombudsman and the ATO last Friday can be found here Sham contracting in the spotlight – Fair Work Ombudsman.

If you have any questions about sham contracting or need your contractual arrangements reviewed, please contact the O’Sullivan Sneddon Law employment law team.

Employment

Sometimes a person who is entitled to an inheritance decides they do not want it, or would prefer another family member to receive it, or would like to share the inheritance.

There are three common ways to achieve this:

1. “Disclaiming” an Inheritance

The person can “disclaim” their inheritance. If done properly, the law treats the beneficiary as though they predeceased the deceased and therefore were never entitled to the inheritance. The inheritance then passes to the next beneficiary in line under the terms of the will or the rules of intestacy (i.e. the rules that apply where there is no will).

This option is often the simplest but can have unintended consequences if the disclaiming beneficiary  did not intend the gift to pass to the next beneficiary in line under the will or the rules of intestacy.

2. “Assigning” an Inheritance

An “assignment” occurs where a beneficiary receives the inheritance but then “assigns” (i.e. transfers) their entitlement to someone else. For example, a beneficiary may decide to transfer their share of an estate to a spouse or child for asset protection reasons.  Because it is a transfer, it can in certain circumstances create tax, stamp duty and Centrelink issues.

3. Deed of Family Arrangement

A Deed of Family Arrangement is a formal agreement between the beneficiaries to change how an estate is to be divided.  Families often use these deeds to:

• avoid disputes;
• settle family provision claims brought against the estate;
• redistribute assets more fairly or differently; or
• achieve practical outcomes not provided for in the will.

Are there Stamp Duty, Tax and Centrelink Consequences?

When property passes from an estate to a beneficiary under a will or the intestacy rules, transfer duty (i.e. stamp duty) is often exempt.  However, if beneficiaries change who receives property through an “assignment” or “deed of family arrangement”, transfer duty may sometimes apply depending on the nature of the property.

In many cases, assets passing from a deceased estate to beneficiaries do not trigger immediate capital gains tax (CGT). However, “assigning” an inheritance can sometimes create CGT consequences. Some “deeds of family arrangement” may also affect tax outcomes.

People receiving Centrelink benefits should be particularly careful.  If a beneficiary gives away or redirects an inheritance, Centrelink may treat this as a gift or deprived asset. This can affect pension or benefit entitlements, even if the person never actually receives the inheritance.

The takeaway is simple: Disclaiming, assigning or redistributing an inheritance may seem straightforward, but each option can have important legal, tax, stamp duty and Centrelink consequences.

Before making any decision on redistributing your inheritance, get the right advice and contact the Wills and Estates team at O’Sullivan Sneddon Law 07 3741 0100.

Wills and Estates

We hear this explanation often.

A complaint is made about comments, jokes, messages or conduct in the workplace, and the response is: “It was only friendly banter.”

Similarly, an employer or manager might assume that a conversation behind closed doors was private and therefore could not amount to harassment.

That is not how the law approaches it.

In Queensland, sexual harassment in the workplace is not limited to physical conduct or overt propositions. It can include unwelcome comments, jokes, questions, gestures, messages or behaviour of a sexual nature where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.

The fact that something was intended as a joke, said privately, or accepted as “workplace culture” does not necessarily make it acceptable — or lawful.

For employers, the key issue is not whether the person responsible thought it was harmless. The question is whether the conduct was unwelcome and whether its impact, viewed objectively, crossed the line.

Workplaces should be clear about expectations, respond promptly to complaints, and avoid dismissing conduct as “banter” without properly considering the legal and practical risks.

Sexual harassment laws are not about stopping ordinary workplace conversation. They are about ensuring people can work in an environment that is safe, respectful and free from unlawful conduct.

General information only — not legal advice.

Sexual Harassment Disputes

Australian business leaders face constant pressure to move faster and cut costs. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools seem like the perfect solution, offering instant document drafting and quick analysis.

However, relying on AI for complex commercial transactions is a high-stakes gamble. While AI is excellent for routine administrative tasks, using it without human oversight introduces major liabilities for businesses.

The Danger of AI-Generated Legal Summaries

A rising trend amongst businesses is the uploading of formal legal advice from solicitors into AI tools to get a “quick summary” in an effort to rapidly progress transactions or negotiations.

Although the temptation is understandable the practice is risky. Formal legal advice is carefully drafted, with every word chosen to reflect specific risks. When AI compresses this advice, it routinely strips away crucial qualifications, conditions, and liability limits. Relying on these simplified, automated summaries means businesses are making critical decisions based on incomplete information, which can expose decisions makers such as directors to claims of breaching their duty of care and diligence.

The Trap of Self-Representation and AI Contract Reviews

Many businesses are now attempting to negotiate commercial leases, share sales, and corporate deeds without legal representation, relying instead on AI to review the contracts.

This approach is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of legal risk. AI is trained to analyse the words on the page, but it cannot identify what is missing or draw on recent experience of similar matters. An experienced solicitor calls on their lived in experience to look for hidden liabilities, poorly worded clauses or missing provisions that have been left out to your disadvantage.

The Missing Ingredients: Context, Strategy, and Expertise

Legal practice is more than assembling documents and requires strategic thinking and commercial context. AI tools do not understand your business’s risk appetite, your relationship with the other party, or your long-term goals.

An experienced solicitor knows how to use your commercial leverage to secure better terms, when to compromise, and how to draft bespoke clauses that protect you and minimise your exposure. AI cannot negotiate, read the room, or formulate a tailored strategy to protect your directors from personal liability.

Protect Your Business

There is no substitute for the strategic foresight, deep context, and personal accountability of a qualified legal professional. Do not leave important business decisions to an algorithm. Contact the experienced team at O’Sullivan Sneddon Law today at to secure tailored legal advice, comprehensive contract reviews, and robust risk management strategies designed to safeguard your commercial success.

Commercial

The Fair Work Commission has announced significant wage changes which take effect from 1 July 2026. These changes impact both the national minimum wage and modern award wages and every employer needs to be prepared.

From 1 July:

• The national minimum wage will increase to $1,004.90 per week or $26.44 per hour
• The minimum award wage will increase by 4.75%.

These adjustments are designed to support cost of living pressures, but they also create compliance obligations for employers.

What does your business need to do?

If you employ staff who are covered by a modern award, you will need to ensure that every employee is paid at least the new legal minimum. This includes paying:

✔️ Minimum hourly rates

✔️ Applicable allowances

✔️ Overtime rates

✔️ Penalty rates

Failing to meet these requirements can result in underpayments, breaches of the Fair Work Act and potential regulatory action. Now is the time to review your payroll and rostering practices and your employment contracts to ensure full compliance.

Where can you find the updated minimum rates?

The minimum rates of pay can be calculated using the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Pay and Conditions Tool here: https://calculate.fairwork.gov.au/

Employment

Businesses enter into contracts with no defined end date all the time.  Usually, that is because nobody is thinking about the end of the relationship when the agreement is signed. At the beginning of a new commercial arrangement, the focus is on opportunities, growth and getting the deal done. Questions about how either party might eventually exit tend to receive far less attention.  The issue only becomes important years later when circumstances change and one party wants out.

At that point, a common assumption often emerges: if the contract does not say how it can be terminated, surely the law allows a party to bring it to an end by giving reasonable notice.

A recent Queensland Court of Appeal decision suggests businesses should be cautious about relying on that assumption.

The dispute

In Impact Healthcare Pty Ltd v St Vincent’s Private Hospitals Ltd [2026] QCA 21, the Court considered an agreement entered into in 2000 under which Impact Healthcare agreed to manage and operate an emergency centre at a newly constructed private hospital.  Significantly, the agreement contained no fixed end date.

Almost twenty years later, St Vincent’s Private Hospitals acquired the agreement and sought to terminate it. Its position was that the Court should imply a term allowing either party to terminate the agreement on reasonable notice. Impact Healthcare disagreed and argued that no such right existed.

The dispute ultimately reached the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The argument that nearly succeeded

What makes the decision particularly interesting is that St Vincent’s succeeded at first instance.  The trial judge found that a right to terminate on reasonable notice could be implied. The reasoning was that commercial contracts of indefinite duration should not leave parties trapped indefinitely and that such a term was necessary to make the agreement work commercially.

That is a view many commercial people would instinctively understand.  If a contract has no expiry date and no apparent means of exit, it is easy to see why one might think a termination right should exist.  The Court of Appeal, however, took a different view.

What the Court of Appeal decided

The Court rejected the argument that there is a general rule applying to all commercial contracts of indefinite duration. According to the Court, the category is simply too broad.

Commercial contracts come in many different forms and serve many different purposes. An open-ended management agreement is different from a franchise agreement. A franchise agreement is different from a supply agreement. A supply agreement is different from a joint venture. Because the category is so diverse, the Court could not identify a characteristic common to every indefinite commercial contract that would justify automatically implying a right of termination.

The Court also focused on the actual terms of the agreement before it. Importantly, the parties had already addressed termination. The contract contained specific provisions identifying circumstances in which the agreement could be brought to an end. The parties had therefore turned their minds to the question of termination and made deliberate choices about when termination would be permitted.

That was an important consideration.  The Court found that implying a broader right to terminate would not be filling a gap in the contract. It would effectively alter the bargain the parties had agreed to.

The BP Refinery analysis

The decision is also a useful reminder of the limits of implied terms generally. Courts do not imply terms merely because they appear fair, reasonable or commercially attractive in hindsight.

The question is whether the proposed term satisfies the established principles for implication, often referred to as the BP Refinery criteria.  In this case, the Court found that the proposed right to terminate on reasonable notice failed for several reasons:

• it was not necessary to give the contract business efficacy;
• it was not so obvious that it went without saying; and
• it was inconsistent with the express termination provisions already included in the agreement.

In short, the proposed term did not complete the contract. It contradicted it.

Why the decision matters

The significance of the decision extends well beyond the healthcare sector.

Many businesses have long-standing agreements that have continued for years without review. Some have no fixed term. Others contain very limited termination rights that seemed acceptable when the relationship began but now feel restrictive. This decision is a reminder that a court may not provide an exit simply because one party has decided the arrangement no longer suits its commercial interests.

Courts generally enforce contracts according to the terms the parties agreed upon. They do not rewrite agreements because one side later wishes it had negotiated something different.  That principle becomes particularly important where the parties have already addressed a topic in the contract. If a contract contains carefully drafted termination provisions, a court is likely to treat those provisions as a deliberate allocation of risk rather than a gap requiring judicial intervention.

Practical lessons for businesses

There are several practical takeaways from the decision.

First, termination clauses deserve more attention than they often receive during negotiations. They may appear routine at the outset, but they frequently become some of the most important provisions in the agreement when a relationship breaks down.

Secondly, businesses should not assume that an implied term will rescue them from an unfavourable bargain. The threshold for implying terms remains high, and this decision demonstrates that courts will not readily intervene where the parties have already dealt with the relevant issue themselves.

Finally, it is worth reviewing existing long-term and open-ended agreements. A careful review may reveal that the business has fewer options than expected if it wishes to exit the arrangement. Equally, it may reveal that the business enjoys stronger contractual protections than it had appreciated.

If you have an open-ended contract and are unsure where you stand, get in touch with the team at O’Sullivan Sneddon Law. We are always happy to have a chat.

Commercial

We have all seen the headlines, and you would be forgiven for wondering whether AI is coming for lawyers’ jobs next.

Some parts of legal work are already being automated –  research, first-drafts, and document summaries.

Below are a few reasons why lawyering will remain stubbornly human

1.  Accountability cannot be automated

When the stakes are high – money, reputation, exposure, disputes – someone has to own the advice and the outcome. AI cannot carry professional responsibility, make calls under uncertainty, or stand behind a recommendation when things get tested later.

2.  You are not paying for answers – you are paying for judgment

Most questions we get asked are not “What does the law say?” Instead, it is usually “What should we do?” Good lawyers weigh risk, context, timing, leverage, budget, and your tolerance for uncertainty. AI is far less reliable at applying sound commercial judgment to your specific situation.

3.  Strategy beats information

Even if AI gives you ten plausible paths, someone still has to choose a coherent strategy –  what to push, what to concede, what to document, what to leave for later, and what to escalate. Strategy is about priorities and trade-offs.

4.  Trust, ethics, and duties are part of the product

For us and our clients, the relationship matters – confidentiality, independence, background knowledge, and a duty to act in your interests. The better AI gets, the more valuable a trusted human who uses AI responsibly becomes.

5. Negotiations are still human

Deals and disputes move because of psychology, leverage, relationships, credibility, and timing. AI can help prepare but it cannot read the room, build trust, or decide when to press and when to settle to protect the bigger commercial objective.

6.  Advocacy and persuasion are situational

Whether you are dealing with a regulator, an insurer, another lawyer, a mediator, or a court, persuasion is about tailoring the message to the decision-maker and the moment. The effectiveness comes from human insight into what will actually change the other party’s position.

7.  AI needs supervision (and good inputs)

AI is powerful, but it is not set-and-forget. It can miss context, over-simplify, or just be wrong (perhaps it is more human that we give it credit for). There is a difference between ‘having AI’ and using it well, framing the right questions, checking outputs, and applying the result with proper professional oversight.

At its core, lawyering is still a people business. Clients want a trusted adviser who understands their goals, can ask the right questions, and will pick up the phone when the situation turns complex or tense. AI won’t replace the human relationship that turns legal advice into clear decisions and confident action.

People